See, what really pisses me off about the Birther movement is that it doesn't god damn matter either way. Well, that and the fact that the asshats would obviously never believe any sort of evidence presented to them.

The rules for presidency stipulate it's gotta be a native, because we don't want a foreign interest ruling the country no matter how charming and likeable they are. Fine. I'm pretty sure Barry isn't a sleeper agent trained as an infant and carefully biding his time before making a whole lot of unfairly pro-Kenyan policy decisions. Hell, even Schwarzenegger has been in the US for long enough and has other interests besides benefiting his old countrymates that I don't think it'd be a big deal for him to run for prez.

Jesus....it's 2000 words worth of crap that can be boiled down into 100 words in the last three paragraphs. The whole point of publishing on the internet is that you no longer have to fit the article to the page, STOP WRITING FILLER.

The problem in the story is the villagers used the rocks to write things to each other, rather than stoning the elders to death when they made catastrophic mistakes. Leaders should fear their constituents, not the other way around. It helps ensure the only people who want to be leaders are people who want to lead.

In other words, you believe that you should be able to say whatever you want without any consequences. The age old cry of liars, cheats and bigots: "freedom means from consequences!"

You believe that if you say something that is demonstrably false, it's unfair when people demonstrate your falsehoods.

You believe that if somebody acting in the capacity of a public figure at a business says something that is unpopular, it's unfair when the people you rely on for your livelihood choose to no longer support you financially.

You believe that if somebody says something to a group of their associates that those associates strenuously disagree with that it's unfair when those associates choose to disassociate from you.

Nobody was told to shut up, Lovett. I have every good, goddamn right to choose to respond to falsehoods with facts and I have every good, goddamn right to choose who I spend my money with and I have every good, goddamn right to choose who I associate with. And when I make those decisions and you try to tell me that my decisions are wrong and unfair and anti-freedom because I made them on the basis of my own experiences and ethos YOU are the one who is attempting to stifle speech.

When the government tries to pass laws that tell those people in your piece to shut up, let me know. When somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to stop talking, let me know.

Until then all I see are people acting against statements of conscience based on their own consciences. Being the first to speak does not infuse you with protection against the retaliatory speech of others.

palelizard:The problem in the story is the villagers used the rocks to write things to each other, rather than stoning the elders to death when they made catastrophic mistakes. Leaders should fear their constituents, not the other way around. It helps ensure the only people who want to be leaders are people who want to lead.

OR, I'm just throwing this out there, nobody fears anybody and we all work cooperatively to make the world better. We could get together to make rules that everybody agrees to live by and because we can't all take the time out of our day to do that we could vote to elect representatives to do it for us; and everybody puts a little bit of money based on what they can afford into a pot so that we can all collectively pay for things that are a common good, like roads and shiat...but whatever, that's just crazy talk.

I thought this article was going to make a good point, but then it went off in on the "people are mean when opinions are expressed" direction.

I believe public discourse really fell apart starting with CNN's Crossfire. Suddenly, there were no longer a bunch of different opinions across a spectrum being presented on TV. Everything needed to fall into either "right" or "left" and the definition of those categories became extreme. If you expressed sympathy with some ideas of the other side, not only were you decried as a traitor, but you were no longer useful to the networks presenting "balanced" programs. They needed one guy on the left, one on the right, and the guy moderating (the best part of the article was the first paragraph). If you couldn't play in this, you didn't get called by the news networks, so everyone became shrill idiots shouting the party lines.

What that meant to everyone else is that you could no longer feel safe, in private life, expressing a moderate position, because everyone tries to associate you with one of those idiots or the other. You can't say "well, of course global warming is real, but I'm not sure we've thought through solutions fully" because then you are labeled a right wing idiot. You can't say "well, I believe in the free market, but isn't Wall Street rigged to make huge profits for the companies and not investors?" without being told you are a Occupy sympathizing lefty.

Yes, we've always had extremist idiots shouting at each other throughout American history. But we've also had more moderate, thoughtful grown-ups talking things through. At least until the last couple of decades...

Voiceofreason01:OR, I'm just throwing this out there, nobody fears anybody and we all work cooperatively to make the world better. We could get together to make rules that everybody agrees to live by and because we can't all take the time out of our day to do that we could vote to elect representatives to do it for us; and everybody puts a little bit of money based on what they can afford into a pot so that we can all collectively pay for things that are a common good, like roads and shiat...but whatever, that's just crazy talk.

It's a great ideal and I'm all for it. The problem is there are bad people out there, and they tend to pose as good people but continuously put their own interests ahead of others' in a way that is detrimental to the whole. On a practical level, we need a methodology to minimize their impact. Fear will keep the local politicians in line. I'm not saying literally kill people for making bad decisions, but there have to be consequences or we allow them to keep making bad decisions.

The article, for all its meandering crazy, makes a valid point when listing several things that have gone wrong in the past two decades and how the people responsible for those situations aren't the ones feeling the pain.

I for one thought the article was pretty good, sarcastic remarks about the birthplace of our president aside. The long-winded allegory of the village was probably unnecessary, though it started out well, having been intended to help us look at political discourse in a stripped-away sense, to see it from the outside with none of the entertainment pizazz. The author does make a fair point about how and why we've turned into this society that seeks to limit discourse.

MonkeyDavid:I thought this article was going to make a good point, but then it went off in on the "people are mean when opinions are expressed" direction.

I believe public discourse really fell apart starting with CNN's Crossfire. Suddenly, there were no longer a bunch of different opinions across a spectrum being presented on TV. Everything needed to fall into either "right" or "left" and the definition of those categories became extreme. If you expressed sympathy with some ideas of the other side, not only were you decried as a traitor, but you were no longer useful to the networks presenting "balanced" programs. They needed one guy on the left, one on the right, and the guy moderating (the best part of the article was the first paragraph). If you couldn't play in this, you didn't get called by the news networks, so everyone became shrill idiots shouting the party lines.

What that meant to everyone else is that you could no longer feel safe, in private life, expressing a moderate position, because everyone tries to associate you with one of those idiots or the other. You can't say "well, of course global warming is real, but I'm not sure we've thought through solutions fully" because then you are labeled a right wing idiot. You can't say "well, I believe in the free market, but isn't Wall Street rigged to make huge profits for the companies and not investors?" without being told you are a Occupy sympathizing lefty.

Yes, we've always had extremist idiots shouting at each other throughout American history. But we've also had more moderate, thoughtful grown-ups talking things through. At least until the last couple of decades...

Another piece of the issue is that the media wanted pundits who could speak in sound bites and wanted a really short contact list. You didn't get a guy who knows science and a different guy who knows gay rights and a different guy who is an expert on relations with Turkey.

You get one dude who has no real skill set, other than the ability to recite summaries of position papers who is in charge of debating all three topics.

Syrrh:See, what really pisses me off about the Birther movement is that it doesn't god damn matter either way. Well, that and the fact that the asshats would obviously never believe any sort of evidence presented to them.

The rules for presidency stipulate it's gotta be a native, because we don't want a foreign interest ruling the country no matter how charming and likeable they are. Fine. I'm pretty sure Barry isn't a sleeper agent trained as an infant and carefully biding his time before making a whole lot of unfairly pro-Kenyan policy decisions. Hell, even Schwarzenegger has been in the US for long enough and has other interests besides benefiting his old countrymates that I don't think it'd be a big deal for him to run for prez.

It all boils down the the belief that immigrants cant possibly make good, loyal Americans, that as hard as you try, you arent reallyAmerican; you are "insert country of origin"-American.

palelizard:Voiceofreason01: OR, I'm just throwing this out there, nobody fears anybody and we all work cooperatively to make the world better. We could get together to make rules that everybody agrees to live by and because we can't all take the time out of our day to do that we could vote to elect representatives to do it for us; and everybody puts a little bit of money based on what they can afford into a pot so that we can all collectively pay for things that are a common good, like roads and shiat...but whatever, that's just crazy talk.

It's a great ideal and I'm all for it. The problem is there are bad people out there, and they tend to pose as good people but continuously put their own interests ahead of others' in a way that is detrimental to the whole. On a practical level, we need a methodology to minimize their impact. Fear will keep the local politicians in line. I'm not saying literally kill people for making bad decisions, but there have to be consequences or we allow them to keep making bad decisions.

No, but it doesn't surprise me that someone would go there. And I honestly wouldn't push for a whatever-th amendment to allow foreigners to run for president because there *is* a (tiny) chance that someone could try to undermine US leadership. Sweeping rules are in place because it's easier than making laws that dissect personal agendas.

But the implication that a small child is a sinister double agent makes me twitch, even when it's just subby's quip and off-topic for TFA. That's okay though, TFA is a huge, long-winded "Poor Brendan Eich and his unpopular opinion."

The one thing that bothers me about free speech is that when idiots and asshats take advantage of it that means I have to get off my lazy ass and contradict them. I couldn't care less about the whole moral and ethical argument- I object to the First Amendment purely from the standpoint of how much extra work it implies.

FTA: "The way you defeat Donald Trump is by getting the ring of power into the hands of a pure soul, a hobbit, say, and that hobbit must journey to Mount Doom and release the ring into its fires. But the Internet: Did you know that every single day, the Internet produces more speech than was created between the dawn of civilization and the year 2006? You didn't know that, because I just made it up. But it feels true. "

ManateeGag:Syrrh: Hell, even Schwarzenegger has been in the US for long enough and has other interests besides benefiting his old countrymates that I don't think it'd be a big deal for him to run for prez.

Do you remember "Amend for Arnold"?

Yes, and it fell apart pretty quickly when the Republican party declared him a RINO for trying to reach a compromise with the state legislature.

reillan:I for one thought the article was pretty good, sarcastic remarks about the birthplace of our president aside. The long-winded allegory of the village was probably unnecessary, though it started out well, having been intended to help us look at political discourse in a stripped-away sense, to see it from the outside with none of the entertainment pizazz.

And Mary says, "I don't remember who I am in this story but I'm furious."

No, but it doesn't surprise me that someone would go there. And I honestly wouldn't push for a whatever-th amendment to allow foreigners to run for president because there *is* a (tiny) chance that someone could try to undermine US leadership. Sweeping rules are in place because it's easier than making laws that dissect personal agendas.

But the implication that a small child is a sinister double agent makes me twitch, even when it's just subby's quip and off-topic for TFA. That's okay though, TFA is a huge, long-winded "Poor Brendan Eich and his unpopular opinion."

skozlaw:In other words, you believe that you should be able to say whatever you want without any consequences. The age old cry of liars, cheats and bigots: "freedom means from consequences!"

You believe that if you say something that is demonstrably false, it's unfair when people demonstrate your falsehoods.

You believe that if somebody acting in the capacity of a public figure at a business says something that is unpopular, it's unfair when the people you rely on for your livelihood choose to no longer support you financially.

You believe that if somebody says something to a group of their associates that those associates strenuously disagree with that it's unfair when those associates choose to disassociate from you.

Nobody was told to shut up, Lovett. I have every good, goddamn right to choose to respond to falsehoods with facts and I have every good, goddamn right to choose who I spend my money with and I have every good, goddamn right to choose who I associate with. And when I make those decisions and you try to tell me that my decisions are wrong and unfair and anti-freedom because I made them on the basis of my own experiences and ethos YOU are the one who is attempting to stifle speech.

When the government tries to pass laws that tell those people in your piece to shut up, let me know. When somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to stop talking, let me know.

Until then all I see are people acting against statements of conscience based on their own consciences. Being the first to speak does not infuse you with protection against the retaliatory speech of others.

So, shut up, Jon Lovett.

What article did you read?!?! The author said none of the things you attribute to him, and the funny thing here is that you don't even see the irony of your post. You are the very type of person he's complaining about. Don't like what the other guy said? Just make up a bunch of bullshiat and attribute it to him, then tell him to shut up.

And while your kind love to make fun of "liberal outrage", reading your post is enough to figure out where you stand politically.

What's ruining this country isn't liberals or conservatives, it's the highly vocal assholes at both ends of the spectrum who refuse to compromise because they place more value on their ideology than they do on results. This country wasn't built on democracy (only wealthy white men could vote), or God, or some other abstract principle. It was built on compromise.

Syrrh:No, but it doesn't surprise me that someone would go there. And I honestly wouldn't push for a whatever-th amendment to allow foreigners to run for president because there *is* a (tiny) chance that someone could try to undermine US leadership.

The Tea Party, for example? Shut down the government because they didn't get what they wanted?

Or how about the billions of dollars now available to candidates across America? No way that will undermine our political system!

/How does one be a speechwriter for Obama for 3 years, but then call him "foreign-born"?

Syrrh:The rules for presidency stipulate it's gotta be a native, because we don't want a foreign interest ruling the country no matter how charming and likeable they are. Fine. I'm pretty sure Barry isn't a sleeper agent trained as an infant and carefully biding his time before making a whole lot of unfairly pro-Kenyan policy decisions. Hell, even Schwarzenegger has been in the US for long enough and has other interests besides benefiting his old countrymates that I don't think it'd be a big deal for him to run for prez.

Agreed. In the unlikely event that Obama was born outside the US, he was brought to the US within his first year. That fulfills the spirit of the rule for me.

McCain was born in Panama and spent a huge chunk of his early life outside of the States. Technically, he was on US soil (canal zone and navy bases), but how much foreign culture did he absorb? Is he really a Panamanian sleeper agent? *snort*

patrick767:I see some people think the writer is serious about being a birther. Successful troll is successful.

Not even trolling. Just a joke. i understand how i might have been the only person who read that and knew off the bat this guy was a former speechwriter for Obama, but he mentions working for him in the article, and he also mentions how right-wingers are constantly repeating stuff from his Twitter to show how awful liberals are. If I hadn't been reading Fark so long, I just might draw the conclusion that neither the submitter nor many of the people posting comments even bothered to read the piece.

skozlaw:In other words, you believe that you should be able to say whatever you want without any consequences. The age old cry of liars, cheats and bigots: "freedom means from consequences!"

You believe that if you say something that is demonstrably false, it's unfair when people demonstrate your falsehoods.

You believe that if somebody acting in the capacity of a public figure at a business says something that is unpopular, it's unfair when the people you rely on for your livelihood choose to no longer support you financially.

You believe that if somebody says something to a group of their associates that those associates strenuously disagree with that it's unfair when those associates choose to disassociate from you.

Nobody was told to shut up, Lovett. I have every good, goddamn right to choose to respond to falsehoods with facts and I have every good, goddamn right to choose who I spend my money with and I have every good, goddamn right to choose who I associate with. And when I make those decisions and you try to tell me that my decisions are wrong and unfair and anti-freedom because I made them on the basis of my own experiences and ethos YOU are the one who is attempting to stifle speech.

When the government tries to pass laws that tell those people in your piece to shut up, let me know. When somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to stop talking, let me know.

Until then all I see are people acting against statements of conscience based on their own consciences. Being the first to speak does not infuse you with protection against the retaliatory speech of others.

The problem for me is that discussion doesn't feel like discussion at all. It's just robot cliche time. I can't find an adult thread in the conversation anymore when talking about politics. I get shot down for expressing an opinion, ostensibly because I'm wrong but really because it's general policy to say no.